Welcome to DuelistGroundz
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Posted 10 June 2012 - 03:10 PM

dolphin

Posted 10 June 2012 - 03:24 PM

aynjel

Posted 10 June 2012 - 03:47 PM

aynjel

Plain Old Duelist

Duelist

21 posts

I'm no religious expert so sorry if I sound ignorant, but wtf they can't find a way to stop bleeding other than putting the baby's penis in their mouth? lol

Bloomberg thinks >16 oz drinks are destroying his city so he proposes a ban on them, then he basically turns a blind eye to the mutilation, exploitation, and harm being done to these newborns. What an idiot.

Twitter

Posted 10 June 2012 - 03:50 PM

Ammit

Posted 10 June 2012 - 04:01 PM

Ammit

I Will Hunt You Down!

Loyalist

3996 posts

I'm no religious expert so sorry if I sound ignorant, but wtf they can't find a way to stop bleeding other than putting the baby's penis in their mouth? lol

Bloomberg thinks >16 oz drinks are destroying his city so he proposes a ban on them, then he basically turns a blind eye to the mutilation, exploitation, and harm being done to these newborns. What an idiot.

Well considering one of these things is protected under the constitution explicitly, its not really the same thing, in addition to which, if you had actually read the article, it clearly states that he did in fact try to contact Rabbis in the city and inform of the risks/urged them to not continue with the practice.

Ammit

Posted 10 June 2012 - 04:28 PM

this. if this was done as some sort of ploy to stir people up before the view the thread then you lose a lot of respect from me.

fuck you

You'd have to be retarded to walk in a thread then start shitstorming based on just reading the thread title and not bothering to read the articles to know the context in which this act was done.

Derp.

Well considering the title was talking about sucking a baby's dick, not ya know performing a medical procedure where the person operating uses his mouth, the title led me to believe it was a lot more worrying than it turned out to be.

Jeff Jones

Posted 10 June 2012 - 04:33 PM

aynjel

Posted 10 June 2012 - 04:40 PM

aynjel

Plain Old Duelist

Duelist

21 posts

I'm no religious expert so sorry if I sound ignorant, but wtf they can't find a way to stop bleeding other than putting the baby's penis in their mouth? lol

Bloomberg thinks >16 oz drinks are destroying his city so he proposes a ban on them, then he basically turns a blind eye to the mutilation, exploitation, and harm being done to these newborns. What an idiot.

Well considering one of these things is protected under the constitution explicitly, its not really the same thing, in addition to which, if you had actually read the article, it clearly states that he did in fact try to contact Rabbis in the city and inform of the risks/urged them to not continue with the practice.

I did read the article, I wouldn't have brought up Mayor Bloomberg if I didn't. I understand this is protected under the constitution, but imo when it gets to a point like this where babies are getting herpes, brain damage, and even dying from this, then the mayor of the city should probably do a little something more than just ask them to move away from the practice. If the Department of Health really has an issue with this stuff, then obviously they would conduct a study or something that shows the effects it has, giving the rabbis and/or Jewish community all the reason to stop this.

Chris Buraseru

Posted 10 June 2012 - 04:56 PM

this. if this was done as some sort of ploy to stir people up before the view the thread then you lose a lot of respect from me.

fuck you

You'd have to be retarded to walk in a thread then start shitstorming based on just reading the thread title and not bothering to read the articles to know the context in which this act was done.

Derp.

have you ever posted anything remotely intelligent while on dgz?

you are an idiot!

You overreact too much in your posts. Calm those tits.

@Ammit: I won't say I didn't go wat at the title, because yeah just by the title alone this is some strange, nasty shit. But I don't think T made it that way in a malicious fucked up manner or anything like what Malcolm thinks he did is all I'm saying.

Also, I'm not really sure how you could make the title so it doesn't come off like that? Babies Got Herpes? idk.

Muscular Black Mr. T

Posted 10 June 2012 - 06:40 PM

Ammit

Posted 10 June 2012 - 09:00 PM

Ammit

I Will Hunt You Down!

Loyalist

3996 posts

I'm no religious expert so sorry if I sound ignorant, but wtf they can't find a way to stop bleeding other than putting the baby's penis in their mouth? lol

Bloomberg thinks >16 oz drinks are destroying his city so he proposes a ban on them, then he basically turns a blind eye to the mutilation, exploitation, and harm being done to these newborns. What an idiot.

Well considering one of these things is protected under the constitution explicitly, its not really the same thing, in addition to which, if you had actually read the article, it clearly states that he did in fact try to contact Rabbis in the city and inform of the risks/urged them to not continue with the practice.

I did read the article, I wouldn't have brought up Mayor Bloomberg if I didn't. I understand this is protected under the constitution, but imo when it gets to a point like this where babies are getting herpes, brain damage, and even dying from this, then the mayor of the city should probably do a little something more than just ask them to move away from the practice. If the Department of Health really has an issue with this stuff, then obviously they would conduct a study or something that shows the effects it has, giving the rabbis and/or Jewish community all the reason to stop this.

I'm pretty sure they already had, which was also mentioned in the article. What do you honestly expect him to do? Its not like he has the power to force them to stop.

Muscular Black Mr. T

Posted 11 June 2012 - 01:15 PM

this. if this was done as some sort of ploy to stir people up before the view the thread then you lose a lot of respect from me.

fuck you

You'd have to be retarded to walk in a thread then start shitstorming based on just reading the thread title and not bothering to read the articles to know the context in which this act was done.

Derp.

Well considering the title was talking about sucking a baby's dick, not ya know performing a medical procedure where the person operating uses his mouth, the title led me to believe it was a lot more worrying than it turned out to be.

really

>posts about ongoing human rights violations>gets bitched at about thread title

Myth

Posted 11 June 2012 - 04:00 PM

Myth

Knight of the Abyss

Duelist

384 posts

I just want to say the majority of you are desensitized from the internet. that shit is fucking disturbing as fuck. what the fuck? Do you have to be a doctor to perform this procedure?! If so shouldn't a doctor know if they have herpes?!

Starwind

Posted 11 June 2012 - 04:15 PM

SSJ Grumpig

Posted 11 June 2012 - 07:51 PM

SSJ Grumpig

Grumpig, Lord of Grumpig

Loyalist

5119 posts

Well considering the title was talking about sucking a baby's dick, not ya know performing a medical procedure where the person operating uses his mouth, the title led me to believe it was a lot more worrying than it turned out to be.

i love the subtle psychology of the thread title, it draws out comments like this

people are more horrified at the thought of a guy sucking a baby's dick and giving it herpes than they are at the thought of 11 babies (2 of which died and 2 more got brain damage) getting herpes because a person's religion says put your mouth on babycock

iWank

Posted 11 June 2012 - 08:17 PM

ThePedanticGentleman

Posted 11 June 2012 - 09:50 PM

ThePedanticGentleman

Twin Shadow

-The Nobodies-

1542 posts

Fuck "religious freedom". This man committed a crime.

We don't support female genital mutilation in the United States, regardless of explanation. There is no reason why we should accept this man killing children by giving them a disease that he knows he is a carrier for.

A mohel does not provide a medical procedure Ammit. You mention that he is protected by religious freedom. He is not performing a medical act, he is not subject to requirements for medical training through the American Medical Association or the government but rather a religious act.

This is no different from cult leaders who convince their followers to drink poison. This death was entirely preventable, it doesn't even require the ending of this absurd ritual, just ritual not being performed by a man conscious of his own contamination. You can't hide criminal negligence under the veil of religion.

Muscular Black Mr. T

Posted 11 June 2012 - 11:13 PM

i stated only facts. any labels/context have to be provided by the reader.

just because someone doesn't react to it the way they'd like to react, does not make it misleading

if anything, calling it a "medical procedure" is misleading because it might lead some people to think this is less atrocious or worrisome than it is. Not to mention the gross ignorance necessary to even consider this a "medical procedure."

Starwind

Posted 12 June 2012 - 07:42 AM

Starwind

Call me Eric

舞etired Staff

14495 posts

i'm not sure if you are being serious right now. You hand-picked details like "grown" and "baby's" while leaving out equally true details to make it sound more shocking than it actually is. Before even reading the article, you've already manipulated the reader to form an opinion that favors your side of the argument. Equally true title would be:

"Mohel gives baby herpes during Brit milah"

Just as true, much less shocking. Herpes has been a risk associated with Brit milah for over 2000 years. Not only that, you didn't even include a single detail in your post that this was during Brit milah. You hand-picked every detail in both the title and the post to increase shock factor before the reader can place it into context. It's manipulative and you know it.

I can do it too: "U.S. man found to have killed hundreds of dogs over the past decade." ... Oh by the way he's a veterinarian who administers euthanasia.

Muscular Black Mr. T

Posted 15 June 2012 - 06:37 PM

Muscular Black Mr. T

bait doll

舞etired Staff

12357 posts

i see your point with the veterinarian. but there are some differences i'd like to point out:

- killing hundreds (rather, tens of thousands) of animals is a given, well-known (if not often thought about) fact of our society. pretty sure most of dgz eats meat seldom thinking twice about where it came from. that hundreds of animals are killed, whether dogs or chickens, shouldn't be that shocking when thought about. - mouth to babypenis contact and babies getting STDs is shocking to most reasonable people, even "in context"

why should that it is brit milah make it any less shocking? this also assumes an acceptance of the practice (that relatively few people know about) as such, when any person can slap their own (dubious) definition, such as "medical procedure" on it. the title you proposed does not tell the reader about the reasonably shocking details that brit milah involves, so it could be seen as less shocking than it is

the point was to take off readers' cultural blinders and challenge their assumptions

would this title be "all-inclusive"?"man sucks baby's bleeding penis as part of long-practiced jewish religious ritual, gives it herpes"

[edit] i find it quite ironic that dgz will rail against religion for saying homosexuality is wrong, but when i point out stuff like this which is directly caused by religion, i'm the bad guy